Robert Sciarrino/The Star-LedgerNew Jersey Supreme Court Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto has decided he will rule in cases that include a temporary judge.

TRENTON — Associate Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto, who pledged to abstain from all state Supreme Court cases because he considers the presence of a temporary justice unconstitutional, has changed his mind.

He will vote on some cases, he revealed today. In fact, he cast a vote dissenting from the majority opinion in a Supreme Court decision released today involving a property dispute.

"Among the varied reactions to (my decision to abstain), a particularly sober, thoughtful, measured and ultimately persuasive analysis stands out, a voice that has triggered additional reflection on the course I earlier charted," Rivera-Soto wrote. "Although it does not modify my earlier conclusion concerning the unconstitutionality of the court’s present composition, that analysis has resulted in a more nuanced view."

Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), who has called for Rivera-Soto's impeachment and is one of his harshest critics, called the justice's decision "bizarre."

"This is as bad as it could get," he said. "He is making a mockery out of his position as justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court and putting himself above the law, as he alone determines."

The opinion released today is the latest ripple effect from Gov. Chris Christie's decision last May to remove Associate Justice John Wallace Jr. from the court. Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) subsequently blocked Christie's nominee, Morristown lawyer Anne Patterson, leaving the seat without a permanent replacement.

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner temporarily appointed chief appellate judge Edwin Stern to Wallace's seat. That upset Rivera-Soto, who argued that the appointment was unnecessary to reach quorum, making the court's makeup unconstitutional.

He announced, in an opinion released last month, that he will "continue to abstain from all decisions of this court for so long as it remains unconstitutionally constituted."

But in his opinion today, Rivera-Soto said he will vote on cases where Stern does not affect the outcome. That includes cases like the decision released today, where the 6-1 vote on the case was not affected by Stern's presence.

However, on cases where Stern might cast a crucial vote swaying the court's opinion, Rivera-Soto wrote that he "shall defer a decision on casting a vote and reserve the right to abstain."

Seton Hall law professor Edward Hartnett said Rivera-Soto is basically saying he'll "cross that bridge when he comes to it."

"He's leaving open the possibly to either vote on the merits or to abstain," he said.

Hartnett, who agrees that Stern's appointment was unconstitutional, said Rivera-Soto's reversal was a positive step and quoted Felix Frankfurter, the late U.S. Supreme Court justice: "Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late."

"Simply because a judge feels strongly that the majority has gotten it wrong, it's nevertheless a good thing for a judge to participate," Hartnett said.

Democrats were far less charitable and called on Rivera-Soto to step down.

"I don't know which is worse, Rivera-Soto's original decision not to rule or today's about-face. Neither is rooted in any solid ground of law, logic or common sense," Sweeney said in a statement. "Rivera-Soto's spinning so fast to reclaim whatever shred of relevance or credibility he still has it's amazing he hasn't been flung out of the Supreme Court and clear across the Delaware River."

Earlier this month, Rivera-Soto said he will not seek renomination when his seven-year term ends in September. He has been heavily criticized by Democrats for his decision to abstain and his renomination has been in doubt since 2007 when he was censured by the court for intervening in a dispute between his son and a high school football teammate.